Comments on: Spike in Greenhouse Gasses

By: Julian Frost

Julian Frost — Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:20:14 +0000

Exxon lied.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:26:25 +0000

“plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship”

Yeah, other way round.

Log co2 vs temp. Linear coefficient. Dumdum thinks not. Neither does dick.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:24:06 +0000

“You couldn’t even recognize the code you posted didn’t match your files”

Ah, the alternative reality. You mean when you posted a link and claimed it had some lines in it you quoted, the lines did not appear. And somehow that is my fault…?

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:22:46 +0000

“OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!”

Ah, yes, lacking any argument, you talk bollocks. Well done, moron. I’m sure you’re a legend in your own mind.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:09:59 +0000

>looked over some of the coding of the maths as a double check (along with another coworker independently: we scientists take rigour quite seriously, especially when programming and knowing we are not computer graduates).

Now that’s funny. You couldn’t even recognize the code you posted didn’t match your files, after having it pointed out to you.

By: RickA

RickA — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:08:39 +0000

BBD #52:

Don’t be so hard on yourself. You said “natural log of CO2 . . .” in #20. I thought that using the logarithm of one or more variables instead of the un-logged form makes the effective
relationship non-linear, while still preserving the linear model. So I didn’t think your #20 was wrong in the first place.

By: BBD

BBD — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:43:53 +0000

FES

Just realised what I wrote at #20. Which was not what I *thought* I wrote. Because if I had written that a plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship, then I would have said what I meant.

Sorry 🙂

By: Francis E Sargent

Francis E Sargent — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:27:15 +0000

Every time I see or have to read a Wow post I go …

OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:32:10 +0000

There’s only one thing to say about this thread … wow.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:44:23 +0000

“Abusive, delusional and downright dishonest. ”

Says someone who KNOWS they have no evidence for their claim and insists that I can’t be a scientist, because, well, she wants to denigrate me for not accepting their batshittery merely because they accept that AGW is real, and thinks that this will work. Which is abusive, delusional and downright dishonest.

Making the claim there ironic.